Police and Justice Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]

Police and Justice Bill

Clause 4 - Standard powers and duties of community support officers

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 134, in clause 4, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
‘(2A)In making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the discretion of Chief Officers to designate the powers of Community Support Officers to the extent that Chief Officers judge to be appropriate’.—[Nick Herbert.]

Nick Herbert: I was speaking before we broke about the proposal to allow the standardisation of the powers of community support officers. I was raising the question of the extent to which it is sensible to divide powers in the way proposed not in the Bill but in the consultation document. The clause will simply allow Ministers to standardise powers by order.
There is general agreement, as there was in the Home Office’s consultation exercise, that some standardisation of powers is desirable. Only 12 per cent. of respondents disagreed with that proposition. However, a range of bodies have expressed concern about whether too much standardisation is being proposed. That is what I wish to explore.
The regulatory impact assessment published by the Home Office concedes that it is intended that the vast majority of CSO powers, including the power to detain, will be made standard, leaving only a small number to be designated at the discretion of chief constables. It is that balance that has raised concerns in some quarters. The Association of Police Authorities has said that giving additional automatic powers to community support officers, particularly the power of detention, is likely to lead to their being taken off the streets and spending more time behind desks completing paperwork; and that the decision about whether or not to vest additional powers in community support officers should be a local one consistent with local policing style and strategy and not imposed from above.
The APA pointed out that its consultation with police authorities found that they supported only a minimum standard set of powers and maximum local flexibility. That view is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which said:
“The standardisation of powers for PCSOs will bring some clarity to the public as to what PCSOs are for. However, we need to guard against them being given powers that lead to abstraction from their major role in providing high visibility contact with the 
Against that, it is fair to say that the Police Federation, which was always sceptical about the introduction of community support officers, was not in favour of giving chief officers more discretion over the exercise of their powers. However, the APA and ACPO are, and the Home Affairs Committee also said that any extension of the powers of CSOs that reduced their street presence would be counter-productive. Of course it would be.
The question is whether the balance that the Minister is proposing is sensible. I have difficulty in understanding why it is proposed to standardise some powers, yet others that seem remarkably similar are to be left to the discretion of chief officers. For instance, the power to detain beggars who have refused to stop committing vagrancy offences will be standardised, but the power to use reasonable force to detain a person making off will be discretionary. Both of those powers would require the exercise of force, and I cannot understand why one should be a definite power that all CSOs will have and the other be subject to the exercise of discretion by chief constables. The Minister says that the Bill is not about centralising policing. The right principle, consistent with that, would be to give chief police officers the maximum possible discretion in this matter.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has set out interesting examples, but in many ways the issue is that we just do not know what will be standard and what will not. What we are discussing will be dealt with through order-making powers. Does he agree that it would be helpful to have some clarification of the direction of travel and confirmation of where the Government are coming from, so that we can better understand the role of police community support officers and where they fit in the overall police family? That is unclear from the Bill.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We seek clarification from the Minister from the standpoint that there is general support among Opposition Members for PCSOs. As I said in a debate earlier this year on the police grant, PCSOs have proved useful in reassuring the public and so on. However, there are studies, including the Home Office’s recent study, that suggest that more empirical evidence is needed to judge the effectiveness of PCSOs. One study found that it was not possible to show that they had played any role in reducing antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, the public surveys are clear that an additional uniformed presence on the streets is valued.
The question is what the right balance is in maintaining PCSOs in a support role for the police and therefore not giving them so many powers that they almost become fully warranted officers themselves, but ensuring that they are sufficiently able to deal with the problems of antisocial behaviour in particular, for which they were deployed. It is difficult in a Committee such as this to reach a judgment on precisely which powers should be exercised by a PCSO. I would much  rather that those decisions, within a framework that we set out, were taken, as far as possible, by chief police officers.
My amendment proposes that the Secretary of State, in exercising the power that he will be given by the Bill to designate standard powers for community support officers, should have regard to the desirability of leaving the discretion for chief police officers. That does not mean that the Secretary of State would be unable to designate standard powers for any of the offences proposed. It simply means that the balance should be shifted more towards discretion for chief officers, which ACPO and the APA want.
There is a question about the extent to which PCSOs should be able to use force at all. It is interesting that the range of offences for which PCSOs are used varies substantially among police forces. It differs from none at all in some cases to more than 40 in others. I wonder whether the Committee should test the proposition that the variation in PCSO powers confuses the public. After all, members of the public generally live in one place. Is it strictly necessary to standardise most powers, taking that discretion away from chief officers, simply to address the supposition that the public do not know what powers PCSOs have? I wonder whether the local variation matters as much as the Home Office’s consultation document suggests.
I hope that the Minister responds to my amendment in the spirit in which I tabled it. I did not want to undermine the process of standardisation that the Government propose, but to suggest that the balance should be shifted more in favour of chief officers, although in a non-prescriptive way—in a way that still allows the Government the discretion as to which powers will be exercised by all PCSOs.

James Brokenshire: I support the points that my hon. Friend has made from the Front Bench about the need for flexibility. We have said all along that the debate is about localism and ensuring that decision-making processes are as close to the ground as possible. This is an opportunity for us to clarify the role and position that PCSOs have in the wider police family.
In my intervention, I alluded to the fact that there was a degree of uncertainty about where the order-making power would lead, although the explanatory notes list the proposed set of powers and discretionary powers. Clearly, things are not currently set in stone and are subject to change. We need to see what the final order looks like.
There is an issue about the need to maintain a balance between a fixed list, which sets certain criteria, and responding to the concern that PCSOs are used as effectively as possible in the communities that they serve. My constituency experience tells me that PCSOs are most commonly the ones who are walking the beat and are the visible sign of policing. If people have issues to raise, they can speak to PCSOs because they are visible and people know who they are. They are used as a way of feeding intelligence back to the police about issues that are taking place in the wider community.
I would be concerned if as a result of fixing a standard set of powers, that role was in some way diminished or changed. For example, safer neighbourhood teams use voluntary support: people who give up their time to support the police with a lot of the clerical duties and the behind-the-scenes work. That is an interesting development. It is good that people want to give to the community by serving the safer neighbourhood teams and dealing with some of the clerical work and the paperwork.
If the role of the PCSO was more prescribed in terms of some of the back-up work, that could lead to less time being spent out on the street, which is where we would like them to be as much as possible. We want them to work with their constable colleagues to ensure that the public are given as much reassurance as possible. We do not want the changes to create even more blurring of the role of PCSOs and that of fully fledged police constables. A distinction must be drawn. PCSOs are not policemen or policewomen on the cheap, as might be suggested. They have a distinct and more community-orientated role in feeding back intelligence; they have the relationship with their police officer colleagues to ensure that communities are better and safer places.
It is important to have clarity about the roles of PCSOs and police officers, so that the public understand how they sit together. There is a concern that people who wish to engage in antisocial behaviour understand the limitation of PCSOs and will therefore exploit the loopholes and that weakness. Therefore, there must always be a strong linkage between the PCSOs and police officers, so that we are not seen to be relying on PCSOs. We must have proper fully trained and fully fledged police officers, given that the training of PCSOs provides much more limited experience. After just a few short weeks, somebody joining as a PCSO is put out on to the streets. They are deployed quickly. That must be balanced with the need to ensure that those PCSOs are not put at risk and that they are not pushed beyond the training and support that they need to do an effective job. Also, their personal safety must not be compromised.
I welcome the opportunity to clarify the duties, roles and responsibilities of PCSOs. However, I support the amendment that my hon. Friend has tabled. It will ensure that PCSOs are kept as close as possible to the neighbourhoods that they serve. If there is a balance to be struck, it should be on that issue rather than on fixed or rigid rules that would apply to PCSOs and their duties and responsibilities.

Michael Fabricant: I am in two minds about community support officers. A friend of mine, a serving police officer, tells me that they are just policing on the cheap. He resents, although I hope the Minister will correct me if this is wrong, the fact that when someone becoming a PCSO starts on a higher salary than a new police officer. My friend maintains that another difference is that police officers have much longer training than PCSOs and argues that in certain circumstances—here I refer to the comments of  my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch on the safety of PCSOs—they would not be able to look after themselves.
That is the bad side of the PCSO initiative. The good side, I guess, is that it is better to see someone on the streets to give reassurance than no one at all. On the other hand, that rather raises the question of whether, if we can afford it, we should not have police officers rather than PCSOs.
I support amendment No. 134 because I believe in localism, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has spoken. It should be for individual chief constables to decide precisely what the role of the PCSO should be. This morning, we had an interesting debate on urban versus rural areas, and I learned from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) that Longton police station is the busiest in England.

Robert Flello: What I actually said was that according to the inspector to whom I spoke, it is the busiest station in Staffordshire.

Michael Fabricant: That is not quite the same. Nevertheless, it sounds like the sort of place I shouldn’t visit on a Friday or a Saturday night, and perhaps not the sort of place I should visit on a Friday or Saturday morning either.

Robert Flello: I went out with police officers from the Longton station on a Friday night, and most illuminating it was.

Michael Fabricant: Obviously, I would not make personal remarks about the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps his shape intimidated—[Interruption.] I will rephrase that: perhaps his fine stature intimidated any miscreants. The point is whether, although a PCSO might well be appropriate for patrolling the leafy lanes of Lichfield on a Tuesday morning, the hon. Member thinks that that same PCSO would necessarily have the skills to do the sort of policing that might be required on a Friday or Saturday night?

Robert Flello: From my conversations with the inspector at Longton, I believe that PCSOs are regarded as a very important and integral part of the team. They are deployed as part of a team approach, which works extremely well. All the police officers in the Longton area regard the PCSOs as vital to the team. The hon. Member referred to where and when PCSOs are deployed. That is an operational issue that, quite rightly, is handled carefully and properly by the inspectors concerned.

Michael Fabricant: That is a helpful response. I imagine that a similar assessment is made with female police officers. I speak with a little knowledge of the issue, because my personal assistant in Norman Shaw North is a former Metropolitan police officer. She told me that after the fourth time she had a knife put to her throat, she decided it was marginally safer to work for me in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made an important point when he said that it should be up to individual police officers to determine where and how PCSOs should work, just as such decisions are made in respect of female police officers, not only for the safety of those officers, but to ensure that our streets are policed safely. That brings me back, logically, to amendment No. 134, because such decisions have to be made by senior officers, perhaps including the chief officer, of a constabulary. I put it to the Minister in no uncertain terms—she looks startled, but that is how I wish to make the point—that policing in rural Staffordshire, notwithstanding what happens in the rougher parts of Stoke-on-Trent, South, is very different from that in leafy inner Birmingham.

Mark Pritchard: I would like to put it on the record that I had a very attractive girlfriend from Longton; many good things have come out of that part of the world.
On the discretion of senior police officers, does my hon. Friend agree that they should have the discretion to appoint special constables who, unlike PCSOs, have a warrant and the power of arrest?

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that the Minister will address the issue, because I do not understand why we do not do more to encourage the recruitment of special police constables. As my hon. Friend said, they have full powers of arrest, rather than the temporary detention powers of PCSOs. Special constables might feel that they are not paid enough. Perhaps they could be paid more, at an interim level—less than the pay of a full police officer—to encourage them to play an important role. I know that late on a Friday or Saturday night in Lichfield, where we have lots of good pubs, clubs and restaurants, things can get a little hectic. If it were not for the good work of special constables, the regular police might be overwhelmed.

Mark Pritchard: The Conservative party is considering its policy on a lot of matters at the moment, and I am aware that our previous leader, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), suggested an annual bounty for specials. What does my hon. Friend think, and what has the Minister to say, about a bounty similar to that offered to territorial army soldiers?

Greg Pope: Before Mr. Fabricant deals with that, might I suggest that we are straying to special constables, while the debate is about PCSOs?

Michael Fabricant: That is absolutely right, Mr. Pope. All I was going to say was that I hope that, if it is in order, the Minister will address the important point raised by my hon. Friend. Senior police officers have to work with a mixture of male and female police officers, male and female special constables and male and female PCSOs. How they combine all those different law enforcers should be left to them, as stated in amendment No. 134. Without that amendment, the Bill will not allow for that degree of flexibility.
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Hazel Blears) indicated dissent.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister shakes her head, and I hope that she will explain why. However, at the moment there does not appear to be that degree of flexibility in the Bill.

Martin Horwood: I give the amendment cautious support, although the hon. Gentleman’s friends may have done terminal damage to the attempts of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to project a new model Conservative party. Perhaps he will recommend a gender awareness course to them soon.
The clause adds a degree of flexibility to the role of PCSOs, which seems an admirable thing given that it is local flexibility for a chief constable who will know the local circumstances. However, it is worth reiterating that PCSOs should not be seen as policing on the cheap. That is the exact phrase that ACPO used in 2002. It said that although they had
“rapidly established a unique role for themselves within the police service,”
they were
“best seen as a complement to, not a replacement for, the role of sworn police officers.”
In ACPO’s view, only sworn police officers were appropriate in certain circumstances, such as where
“there is a clear likelihood that a confrontation will arise ... Where there is scope for exercise of a high degree of discretion—for example, where a situation is complex owing to a number of different parties involved ... Where police action is likely to lead to a higher than normal risk of harm ... Where there is a clear likelihood that police action will include any infringement of a person’s human rights ... Where the incident is one which is likely to lead to significant further work”.
Therefore, there are clear boundaries to the role of PCSOs.
Nevertheless, I generally welcome the role they play, and I certainly do so in my constituency. They are a valuable contributor to a visible policing presence on the streets of Cheltenham and elsewhere. An occasional uniformed presence, especially on foot or on a bicycle, deters antisocial behaviour or low-level crime from occurring in the first place.

Michael Fabricant: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he not agree that, all things being equal, people would rather see a police officer than a PCSO?

Martin Horwood: The underlying philosophy of the amendment is that there should be local flexibility. If resources being limited allows for more PCSOs on the streets, and therefore a greater visible presence, that might sometimes be preferable to spending the same resource on police officers. However, it should be a matter for local flexibility. PCSOs provide a valuable function, so long as they always have the right to call in uniformed officers when things may get out of hand. In a neighbourhood area that covers more or less the whole of the south of Cheltenham, we are likely on an average night to have only two full police officers on  duty for the evening, and they will be in a car, so there is a perception that policing has disappeared from the streets.

Douglas Carswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Minister does not accept the amendment, it will be a further example of her talking the language of localism—paying lip service to it—but not actually delivering? What we have here is an example of achievable localism, where we can have local solutions to local problems. If the amendment is agreed to, it will provide an example of real localism in action.

Martin Horwood: I think I would go so far as to agree with my hon. Friend—or the hon. Gentleman rather, since we must not push the friendship too far.
I was summing up by saying that I disagree with some of the reservations about PCSOs and that they can play a valuable role in policing, especially when resources are so stretched that in some parts of the country—certainly in my constituency—the perception is that the police have disappeared from the streets altogether, and people feel—[Interruption.] The Minister may say “pah”, but the fact is that that inspector neighbourhood area which covers the entire southern half of my constituency has only two police officers in a vehicle on duty on an average evening, and people therefore clearly perceive that police officers are simply not about at the times of day when antisocial behaviour is likely to occur. That is precisely why PCSOs can provide a useful complement to police officers, and it is why I am happy to support the amendment.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that there is cross-party consensus that police community support officers are a valuable addition to our police service. I stress the word “addition” because the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has talked about there being hardly any police about. There have been an extra 14,000 police officers since this Government came to power, and 6,000 extra community support officers.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend refers to apparent consensus in the Committee. Is she aware that despite the fact that Chief Superintendent Neil Wain, the basic command unit commander for Stockport division, has said that he is absolutely delighted he will get new PCSOs, which will enable the neighbourhood policing model to be developed in advance of the Bill, Stockport council is putting out irresponsible scare stories that Stockport is under-resourced? Chief Superintendent Wain’s words to me on Friday made it quite clear that Stockport police are not under-resourced. What does my right hon. Friend have to say about that?

Hazel Blears: Greater Manchester police, along with every other police service in the country, have received an increase in resources. The police service as a whole has had a 50 per cent. increase in investment  in the past few years. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s superintendent is doing a fine job in ensuring that he gets best value out of that increased investment.
There has been extensive consultation about the standard set of powers that has been proposed, and which is outlined in the explanatory notes. Some 70 per cent. of respondents to the consultation supported the idea of a standard set of powers. There was clearly some difference about the extent of that set.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said that he thinks the cut-off point is rather arbitrary. The powers have been carefully thought out. I personally spent a lot of time looking at the different schedules, which are designed entirely to reflect the role of the community support officer on the street, tackling low-level antisocial behaviour rather than being drawn off to deal with confrontational situations that might lead to the officer having to give evidence in court. That is not where we want them to be. We want them to be out on the streets, maximising patrol time and building a relationship with local people, schools and shopkeepers, and ensuring that they can make a significant impact. The powers mainly concern environmental issues and antisocial behaviour, such as confiscating alcohol from underage drinkers—the things that the public want CSOs to do.
It is vitally important that there is no confusion among the public. At the moment, CSO powers can vary from place to place and the public are not clear about what they can and cannot do. The fact that CSOs will have a standard set of powers does not mean that they will have to exercise all of them all the time. It will still be open to chief officers, BCU commanders and neighbourhood police team leaders to task and deploy their resources in a flexible, local way. The measure in no way seeks to dictate how they use those powers, but it is important that they have a menu of powers at their disposal to enable them to tackle the issues that the public think important. If CSOs do not have sufficient powers, people will often seek to undermine their activities. It is important that they have those powers, particularly when they are dealing with groups of people who can be fairly rowdy, and sometimes threatening and intimidating.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs raised the apparent inconsistency, to him, between a power to detain beggars and no power to use force to detain others. In fact, that is perfectly consistent. CSOs will not have the power to use force to detain as a standard power, but they will have the power to detain, to seek name and address and to detain somebody for 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable if it proves necessary. The same power applies to beggars as to anyone else, so there is no inconsistency.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears: I just want to make a bit of progress. I want to put some points on the record, and we will probably be short of time.
The amendment duplicates, to some extent, provisions already in the Bill, which provides that in seeking to make an order around a standard set of powers there has to be consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. It is not a matter of our simply coming to a conclusion. There has to be proper consultation, and that is exactly what has happened. In some cases, the Police Federation wanted wider designation than other parties. Clearly, people will take different views. Unison, the trade union that represents the majority of CSOs, wanted a wide range of standard powers at its members’ disposal to help them to do the job properly.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch wanted some reassurance about the direction of travel. I hope that I have given him that. The powers allow CSOs to deal with low-level antisocial behaviour, to have maximum time out on patrol, not to be taken off the street to do administrative or managerial tasks, and to play the role that they are there to play. Clarity of that role is important, and police constables and sergeants in the neighbourhood policing teams will co-ordinate, manage, task and deploy the team, look at the national intelligence model and consider problem-solving and operations. CSOs will help in carrying out that task, but it will be much better done together.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked whether this is policing on the cheap. Clearly, that is not the case. It is policing done in the way in which the public want it done, with the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time, and hopefully, with the right attitudes. That is the essence of neighbourhood policing.
The Bill contains a commitment to the adequate training of police community support officers. That is very important. They were experimental when first introduced, but now they will be a mainstream part of our work force. That means that when there are 24,000 of them, they will need to be properly trained, and we are working on national standards for that.
The hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for The Wrekin raised the issue of special constables. I am pleased to be able to say that for the first time in a long time we have managed to reverse the decline in special constable numbers. This year, the figures are going up. There has been a 14 per cent. increase in the 18 months from 31 March 2004 to 30 September 2005, and we now have more than 12,500 special constables. A further 4,000 applications are being processed. In a large part, that is due to the excellent television recruitment adverts that we put out last year, which have drawn an awful lot of interest in the special constabulary from people who traditionally might not have got involved.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware that West Mercia unfortunately is not experiencing that national trend of increasing numbers of special constable but has in fact seen a cut of more than 50 per cent. since 1997? If she is not aware of that, will she undertake to drop a note to Mr. West, the chief constable, and encourage him to follow the national trend?

Hazel Blears: I am sure that the chief constable is doing what he can to encourage special constables, but I will have a look at that situation. It may well be that in recent times, he too has been the beneficiary of the new recruitment campaign.
There are a series of schemes whereby special constables can be paid—I think five schemes are currently operating—but people have different views on that issue. In fact, many special constables do not necessarily want to be paid because they see it as a voluntary job. However, in the areas in which they get an allowance, it is useful.

Michael Fabricant: I did not understand something that the Minister said earlier. She said that PCSOs could not use force—perhaps I have got it wrong—but that they can detain people for up to half an hour and get their details, while they wait for police officers arrive. If the miscreant or the person that they are trying to detain does not want to be detained, how can they be detained without the use of force?

Hazel Blears: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the powers, which are to detain and to seek a person’s name and address. If a person decides that they are not going to remain in that place, they can walk away but will be guilty of an offence. PCSOs do not have the standard power to use reasonable force to detain, but they do have the power to detain and to get a name and address. They have the power to use reasonable force only when exercising a power for which, were a police constable exercising it, reasonable force would have been needed. So the use of reasonable force is a very limited power.
Hon. Members are looking puzzled. I say to them that if they had to study the provisions as closely as I have had to, they would understand the fine nuances and interpretations of those provisions. I am always trying to enlighten certain Opposition Members about the intricacies of the powers. That is the position, and if somebody chooses to walk away before the police constable arrives on the scene, they will be guilty of an offence.

Mark Pritchard: I am happy to reciprocate in this period of enlightenment. If a PCSO is known to have made an arrest, given that they do not have the power of arrest, does that mean that any such arrest would have been unlawful, or could it be that the PCSO has made a civil arrest? I ask because I am aware that Arriva Trains has just appointed PCSOs who apparently have the power of arrest—that is in Wales and Shropshire.

Hazel Blears: I am sure that hon. Gentleman has information that I may not have, but I am not aware of any PCSOs with the power of arrest. They are not police officers and should therefore exercise the powers with which they are designated under legislation. They cannot exercise powers that are not designated to them. He may give me more information about that case if he wants to.
The standard set of powers proposed, which is aimed at low-level antisocial behaviour, is perfectly appropriate to the role of PCSOs. I commend the  schedule in the explanatory notes to hon. Members. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask the Committee to resist it.

Nick Herbert: I confess to being slightly bemused by all this. The Minister has obviously had a little more time to study it in detail.
Despite the fact that a majority of respondents to the consultation exercise agreed that power should be standardised, there was minimal support in some responses for standardisations that have nevertheless found their way into the proposal. Only 35 per cent. of respondents were in favour of granting CSOs a standardised power to issue fixed penalty notices to deal with dog fouling, but that power has found its way into the proposed powers. Similarly, only 41 per cent. of respondents supported giving CSOs the standardised power to require a name and address in relation to antisocial behaviour, but that power has also found its way into the proposals. I am concerned that the views of consultees such as ACPO and APA, which want to see more discretion in these matters, are not being taken into account.
The Minister relied on the explanation that chief officers will still have operational independence, in that they will be able to tell PCSOs whether to use powers, but I am not sure that that is a very good principle. Chief police officers seek the power to decide exactly what powers should be available to their forces, but I am not sure that it is a good principle for Ministers to set standard powers through Parliament and then say that it is all right for chief constables not to use them if they do not want them. To what extent will chief constables be open to attack, or even judicial review, if they suggest that CSOs should not use powers that they have been given by order? I am not sure that that is a sensible balance.

James Brokenshire: What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on the fact that PCSOs have the power under terrorism legislation to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians when in the company of an appropriate officer? That raises some issues that I highlighted earlier about safety and training. Someone might be under the supervision of an officer, but in terrorism situations and with the heightened threat that we all face, PCSOs might become more actively involved in the campaign against terrorism.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was not aware of that. We should keep under review the exercise of warranted officers’ powers under the terrorism legislation.
I return to the point that I made to the Minister earlier, to which she did not respond, that in spite of the fact that I have been clear about Conservative support—albeit with some reservations—for the deployment of CSOs, a Home Office study found no discernible differences in trends in the numbers of crimes and incidents between areas with and without CSOs before and after their introduction. That is rather a damning finding.
When PCSO powers are standardised, it will be necessary to keep under close review the question whether the right balance is being achieved between,  on the one hand, maintaining community support officers as a branch of the police family that is on the streets and not tied up in police stations and, on the other, establishing by means of empirical evidence the extent of their effectiveness in the job, and whether and to what extent their powers are lacking, as opposed to merely obtaining survey evidence that they are generally popular.
It probably makes sense, subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, to allow Ministers to make those judgments about the right balance of powers, but I am disappointed that the Minister felt that it was not necessary at least to include in the Bill the requirement to have regard to the need to give chief constables discretion. That is a further small piece of evidence in support of the view that the Bill tends to accrue power to the Home Secretary.
The Minister is tending to resist proposals that would devolve the power in some way, or make it clear that decisions and discretion should still rest either with police authorities or the chief constables. That tendency was evident this morning and is evident in a small way in the provision that we are discussing. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
‘(7)The standard powers and duties of community support officers shall not include the power to use reasonable force to detain or control a person, under Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30).’.
I fear that we may tread on some similar ground, in discussing my amendment, to the ground that we covered in considering the previous one, as the confusion surrounding the clause continues. The amendment is a probing amendment, intended to discover the nature and extent of the powers that the Secretary of State might want to introduce under the clause. It is rather strange that, as the Minister has already begun to explain to us in some detail, extremely detailed powers are included in schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002, explaining exactly the powers that PCSOs can exercise: issuing, in effect, fixed penalty notices; detaining, for up to 30 minutes, suspects who fail to give details; and using reasonable force to detain people in those circumstances—I think. The Minister may well correct me.

Michael Fabricant: There is a matter on which I am genuinely unclear. We have heard from the Minister that force cannot be used to detain someone, but a person who then walks away in that situation has committed an offence; I understand that. However, if the person also says, “I am not going to give you my name and address,” and then walks off—

Hazel Blears: They can take a picture.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister says, correctly, that a picture could be taken to identify them. That is assuming that there is CCTV available. It all seems a bit wet to me.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining yet again the extent of the confusion about the powers. I must admit that I was under the impression, from the research that we did, that PCSOs could use reasonable force in some circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will correct me when she comments. At the very least, an extremely long and detailed list of the powers that PCSOs can use is given in the Police Reform Act 2002, which seems appropriate in a measure that comes before the House. Therefore, it is curious that when the opportunity is presented by clause 4 of the Bill, no such powers are forthcoming. Nothing in clause 4 gives details of any possible new powers for PCSOs. Subsection (2) includes a proposed new section 38A of the 2002 Act, but that includes no details of added powers.
Explanatory notes are sometimes helpful, but in this case, bizarrely, they state:
“Only a power that is set out in Schedule 4 to that Act”—
the 2002 Act—
“as being exercisable by CSOs can be conferred as a standard power.”
That seems completely tautological to me; I think it really means that the only powers that the Secretary of State can confer are the powers that the Secretary of State is given the power to confer.
The purpose of this probing amendment is to draw out from the Minister what powers might be conferred in addition to those in the 2002 Act. We have picked the example of detention, which is perhaps one of the more contentious. Would she care to go beyond the limits suggested by ACPO when the 2002 Act was passed? It advised not using PCSOs in circumstances where
“there is a clear likelihood that police action will include any infringement of a person’s human rights—for example intruding into their privacy or deprivation of their liberty (beyond the temporary detention period available to PCSOs)”.
That sphere of action would extend their powers beyond what everybody imagined when PCSOs were first established. Indeed, it might extend them beyond what PCSOs were capable of doing, given their training. That begins to blur the line between PCSOs and full officers. In due course, we would no doubt find out what the additional or varied powers were by laying an affirmative resolution before Parliament. Indeed, the Bill provides for that, but why leave things to an affirmative resolution, which we could only oppose or support? Why not put things in the Bill, as we did in the 2002 Act? Would the Minister care to enlighten us?

Hazel Blears: I will do my best to enlighten the Committee. Let me explain the structure of the legislation. The schedule to the 2002 Act outlines a set of powers for community support officers. The Bill does not introduce new powers—other than the truancy power—but decides which of the powers in the schedule should be standard powers for CSOs and which should still be designated only at the chief  officer’s discretion. The explanatory notes set out in pretty clear detail which powers we propose should be contained in the standard set and which should still be designated only at the chief officer’s discretion.
There are two tables in annexe A to the explanatory notes. One is entitled, “Powers intended to be included in the first set of standard powers for community support officers” and includes alcohol and tobacco powers, powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, enforcement powers and security powers. The other is entitled, “Powers that can be given to CSOs but which are not intended to be included in the first set of standard powers”. That second set remains to be designated at the chief officer’s discretion. We therefore have two sets of powers, but none of those powers are new—they are all in the Act. One set will be designated as standard powers, which all CSOs in all forces will be able to exercise, and the other set will be designated at the chief officer’s discretion.
 The first set includes the power to detain for 30 minutes, but the power to use reasonable force to detain is in the second set of powers, which are to be designated at the chief officer’s discretion, so we are maintaining the distinction between powers that do not involve confrontation and powers that might. I am concerned to ensure that we do not necessarily put CSOs in positions of confrontation, which might mean that they get taken off for lengthy training, as hon. Members have said. That, then, is the structure of the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that section 38(8) of the Act gives CSOs the power to use reasonable force when exercising a power if a police constable would have the right to use reasonable force when exercising the same power. To give two examples, a CSO might use reasonable force when exercising their power to enter premises for the purposes of saving life or limb or their power to photograph somebody. Therefore, if a police constable has the power to use reasonable force when doing something, a CSO doing the same thing by virtue of the powers designated in schedule 4 would also have the power to use reasonable force. I hope that that is clear to hon. Members. If not, we can probably provide a master-class in the designation of CSO powers. That might be helpful at some point.
The amendment is not needed. We have the affirmative resolution and can look at the issue. It is appropriate that we have had a lengthy consultation period, and we have had a whole series of responses. That is the appropriate way for us to proceed. Having had that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment is not necessary and withdraw it.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for her impressive exposition on the detail of schedule 4 to the 2002 Act and the contingent contents of the Bill. I feel the haze lifting slightly and I look forward to the day when some villain who has not properly analysed schedule 4 fails to walk away from a PCSO, under the  mistaken impression that they have the power to detain him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Community support officers: power to deal with truants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Herbert: I want to raise an issue relating to the proposed additional power for community support officers to deal with truants. The Police Federation says that truancy is a serious problem which can be very time-consuming for fully sworn officers, and expressed the view that this is a sensible measure that should allow police officers to spend more time fighting crimes that require more skills, training and experience. It is also consistent with the type of powers that CSOs were originally envisaged to hold.
However, organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform have expressed concern about giving CSOs, who may be untrained, the power to deal with truants. A document from the Howard League points out that child truants are often very vulnerable and challenging, and awarding CSOs the power to remove them could put children and officers at risk. It states that child truants should be dealt with by people who are “expert and trained”. That is a perfectly fair observation on the need to ensure that CSOs are properly trained to deal with truants. The Minister said that clause 4 puts a training provision into primary legislation for the first time, which we welcome. Is that also the case in relation to clause 5 and the additional powers that CSOs will have to deal with truants? If not it is an omission, because training in the exercise of the power to deal with young offenders—albeit that it is something that we welcome CSOs being able to do—would be an important counterbalance to the extension of that power.

Hazel Blears: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants: CSOs who have this power will have to receive proper and adequate training to deal with young people. The power of CSOs to do truancy sweeps will be universally welcomed as they often know the young people in their area and it will free up police officers’ time. It is also important in tackling antisocial behaviour. As we know, young people who are out of school hanging around the shopping centre or on estates during the daytime can easily be drawn into antisocial behaviour and even more serious activities, so the power will be very welcome indeed. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that CSOs should be adequately trained to exercise the power, and I give him that assurance.

Nick Herbert: Will the training that the Minister promised be provided under the statutory provision in the Bill? In other words, will chief officers have a duty to provide the training under clause 4(6) or will it be a discretionary matter? Was the Minister just expressing a desire that there should be training?

Hazel Blears: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that clause 4(6) relates to additional powers that are designated, so it does not apply to this power. It is section 38(4) of the 2002 Act that provides that there should be adequate training.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Police bail

Nick Herbert: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in schedule 4, page 75, line 10, after first ‘a’, insert ‘senior’.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 136, in schedule 4, page 75, line 25, at end insert—
‘(4A)In this section “senior constable” means a constable designated as a senior constable by the Chief Officer of the force.’

Nick Herbert: We now come to the part of the Bill that extends the concept of street bail, which was introduced in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I have considerable concerns, which I expressed briefly on Second Reading, about the provisions and how they will operate. I have therefore tabled amendments, which I believe will be complementary to those that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, to suggest some moderation in the operation of those provisions.
What I have to say is not to be taken as a challenge to the concept of street bail, which I recognise as valuable. Where police officers arrest a suspect but for some reason find it difficult to fulfil their statutory obligation to take them straight to a police station, street bail allows them to impose the condition that they report to a police station at a later stage. We know from a report published in 2001 by the PA Consulting Group that the average time taken to process an arrest is three and a half hours. Given the potential difficulties for police officers, particularly early on in their shifts or when they have to deal with a large number of offenders, it makes sense for them to have the discretion to require people to report to a police station at a later stage.
However, the Bill goes considerably further by enabling police officers to attach a wider range of conditions to street bail than simply having to report to a police station. Those conditions include not  committing an offence, not interfering with witnesses and not obstructing the course of justice. There is also a condition to protect the person themselves. Although those measures sound perfectly reasonable, the problem is that, in effect, custodial conditions are potentially to be imposed by police officers without the supervision of the courts. The provisions represent a significant shift away from a system in which the courts properly exercise such functions to one in which individual police officers do so. They are potentially the extension of a form of summary justice.
Such conditions could be imposed for lengthy periods of time, despite the fact that the offender had not been charged with any crime. I cannot see any measure in the schedule that will put time limits on those conditions. The conditions could include curfews, tagging and restrictions on whom a person can meet and speak to, so they are potentially onerous penal conditions. The role of the independent custody sergeant, as a semi-independent arbiter of bail conditions—a role that is important in the current process of granting bail at police stations—is effectively eliminated in such cases. The provision has given rise to worry outside the House not least on the part of Liberty, which said:
“It is unreasonable to impose conditions on a person’s freedom, by means of bail conditions, before there is even considered to be sufficient evidence to prosecute in respect of offences they may never be charged with and before the person knows the nature of the case against them.”
We shall come shortly to amendments that will deal with that worry by bringing the provisions of the extension of street bail under the auspices of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so I shall not discuss them now. That would be one way in which to deal with the extension of power. My amendments are not mutually exclusive; they have the same objective. They propose an additional way in which to moderate the use of the sweeping additional police power. Under amendment No. 135, the power to confer street bail and set the conditions should be exercisable only by a “senior” constable. Amendment No. 136 defines a senior constable who is designated as such
“by the Chief Officer of the force.”
In part, the amendment is probing, because I am not sure of the extent to which the office of senior constable may or may not exist under current legislation. I do not believe that it does, but we are moving to a criminal justice system where, increasingly, such discretion will be given to police officers. We are moving to a remarkable extension of summary justice through the Bill and through other measures that form part of the Government’s respect agenda. We must bear in mind the Prime Minister’s proposal to bypass the court system and to speed up the process of justice. All such matters give rise to serious issues about whether such discretion should be exercised by relatively inexperienced police officers.
When punitive conditions can be set by police officers, not only do they need to be subject to proper constitutional checks and safeguards, but those powers should be exercised under supervision and by police officers with more experience than a recent trainee graduate. That view is shared broadly by  others. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the concept of street bail. In 2002, the Home Affairs Select Committee said:
“We believe that the custody sergeant is an officer with an appropriate level of experience for the responsibility of imposing bail conditions before charge because, unlike detention, conditional bail requires the consent of the prospective defendant.”
The Police Federation said that, while it welcomes the decision to extend street bail, police officers should still be subject to the scrutiny of a police sergeant, which is important to ensure integrity and proportionality. The body that represents police officers is expressing some worry about the extension of the discretionary power that will be given to police officers.
Other countries have the position of senior constable. For example, in the Australian federal police, the position requires six years’ service in community policing. In New Zealand, it requires 14 years’ service. The Tasmanian state police have grades of constables: for example, first-class constable first grade and first-class constable second grade. That sounds wonderfully old-fashioned in many respects. The concept that there should be constables in whom powers, which are not regarded as appropriate for use by all police officers, are vested is important.
I resisted the temptation in amendment No. 136 to designate a senior constable by reference to their length of service, because that is more a matter of judgment on the part of chief officers as to whether an individual has the maturity as well as the experience to fulfil that particular role. We can debate that. This Committee, or a future one considering a similar proposal might judge that a statutory term of experience is necessary. I am open to such a suggestion.
My alternative is in line with the principle that I have been trying to set out during our deliberations: where possible, chief officers should have discretion over these matters. I propose that chief officers could make the judgment. It is possible that relatively young officers or those who have spent relatively little time on the beat might nevertheless be of a calibre, and have sufficient maturity to be able to exercise the powers; it is not just a matter of experience. I hope that there will be work force reform that enables police officers to be recruited who are not necessarily at the young age of those who are currently being recruited.
I hope that the Minister will respond by addressing my substantive concern about the operation of these powers and by recognising that we do not seek to oppose wholesale their exercise. There is an important debate to be had about the extension of summary justice and the need to try to ensure that police officers have immediate powers to deal with things such as antisocial behaviour and exercise their role on the streets appropriately. If the police are to have these powers, it is important that they are balanced properly and that the public’s confidence in the system is maintained.
My view about this matter was reinforced when I met a constituent last week. He is a highly respectable senior businessman who encountered some youths in an unpleasant way in a local car park. Some  disagreement resulted. The youths later claimed that he scratched their car when passing it, which he denies. As a consequence, the police officers visited him at his home. A relatively young police officer offered him the alternatives of admitting guilt and being given a fixed penalty notice or going to a police station some distance away and having to be dealt with there. He chose the fixed penalty notice route but felt that the police officer was not exercising his discretion in a particularly sensible way.
I am concerned that, if we give these sweeping additional powers to police officers who do not have the experience to exercise them—leaving aside the civil liberties implications of what they are doing—it will lead to an undermining of the relationship between the police and the communities that they serve. The fact that the Police Federation has expressed concern about the supervision of the powers should send a strong warning message about whether we are doing the right thing by extending street bail conditions in this way. I hope that these amendments and the concept of the introduction of a senior constable will be taken seriously by the Minister.

James Brokenshire: I support the amendment. Creating the concept of a senior constable would be helpful in the context of their experience and knowledge as a police constable—my hon. Friend used the word “maturity”—reassuring the public that the powers would be used effectively and judiciously. That concept would also allow there to be separate training modules and the support that would come from that. The amendment is sufficiently widely drawn to allow for that flexibility, because it talks about a senior constable being designated by the chief officer of the force.
The chief officer could designate that relevant senior constables had to complete a period of training or to gain specific experience to ensure that they were able to use the additional powers sought under the Bill fairly and reasonably. I can envisage circumstances where people would rush into attaching quite onerous or stringent bail conditions. In some ways, that ability is hemmed in by restrictions under PACE, but again the question is—I suppose that this will be my phrase for the day—what the direction of travel is and where the measure is taking policing powers.
We are talking about summary justice, taking much of the administration of justice away from the courts and giving it directly to police officers. That places a heavy burden and responsibility on them. It must be paired with ensuring that there are sufficient checks and balances so that powers are not misused. I am not saying that that would in any way be the case but, in other countries, the powers are tilted more heavily towards the police and could be misused.
It is possible to make complaints about the way in which the police handle things, and it is right that we have a robust approach to investigating complaints where the police may have exceeded or not used their powers appropriately. That is key to ensuring that powers are not abused. If we are moving towards the  police having a much greater ability to exercise powers directly, without direct judicial scrutiny or independent scrutiny of their actions, there needs to be a sufficiently robust challenging mechanism, whether it be through an investigation if complaints are made, or otherwise.
I have concerns about going down the road of summary justice. There must be checks and balances so that, if there is inappropriate use of powers and—dare I say it—corruption, those matters will be addressed properly, efficiently and effectively. Checks must be in place to ensure that such situations are picked up quickly and that the officers involved are dealt with quickly, and to provide assurance to the public.
I say that because giving police officers much stronger powers changes the nature of policing. I am referring to the trust that must exist in the police, given the manner in which policing is, and has always been, undertaken in this country. We have policing by consent. We must keep that at the forefront of our minds when straying down the road of summary justice and increasing police direct powers without oversight. We have to ensure that the public are willing always to trust the police to use their powers in the interest of justice, which is what this is all about.
Although I give a cautious welcome to the proposals, which I hope will make the operation of police bail more effective and efficient, it is important that there should be checks and balances. That is why I support the amendment, which seeks to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny, so that we can be sure that police constables who exercise the police bail powers do so properly, and have the experience, maturity and training to use the powers to the intended effect.

Michael Fabricant: Earlier, the Minister reassured the Committee that PCSOs dealing with truant children would have adequate training. The provision that amendment No. 135 seeks to amend also concerns young children. In paragraph 2 of schedule 4, new subsection (3B) states that where a constable—my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs argues that, if amendment No. 135 were to be adopted, it would be a senior constable—
“releases a person on bail under subsection (1) the constable may impose, as conditions of the bail, such requirements as appear to the constable—”
Presumably, that would again change to senior constable—
“to be necessary ... for the person’s own protection or, if the person is under the age of 17, for the person’s own welfare or in the person’s own interests.”
I guess we are not allowed to say child, but that is what we are talking about if the person is under 17.
The problem is that, because of the way in which the measure is drafted, it sounds as though that could be any constable. I suspect that the Minister will reassure me that it cannot, and that it must be a constable specially trained in dealing with young people under the age of 17—I hope that she will say that, anyway. However, it is not just that that concerns me. Under  new subsection (3B)(a), (b) and (c), important judgments have to be made by the senior officer or, as the schedule is drafted, the constable. That constable will have to judge whether the person will
“interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or any other person”,
will have
“to secure that the person surrenders to custody”,
and that he
“does not commit an offence while on bail”.
To do all that, he will have to be a veritable Judge Deed, yet we hear that he is to be an ordinary constable. My hon. Friend has shown considerable foresight in suggesting that it should be a senior constable. Amendment No. 136 gives power to the local chief officer to make the decision about what denotes a senior constable. What is a senior constable? Is it a sergeant, an ordinary constable who has 10 or 15 years’ experience, an ordinary constable who has had training in a particular area, or an officer of a particular rank?
Earlier, we argued that the Bill was too tightly drafted. In this instance, it has been too loosely drafted. It does not give a clear indication of the skills, qualities, training or seniority that a constable should have if he is to make those important decisions. I hope that the Minister will accept that they are important decisions—we are discussing the welfare of children under the age of 17. Also, when we discuss witness interference, we are talking about the integrity of the justice system. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that a constable will be appointed to that important role only if he or she has been clearly designated by the chief constable. If amendments Nos. 135 and 136 are rejected, what mechanisms will be in place to allow a chief constable to ensure that only trained and experienced police officers make the important decisions regarding who should be put on bail?

Hazel Blears: Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 highlight some serious and significant issues. I do not pretend that these are not matters of public concern. They are certainly matters of concern to the police service. The provisions are part of a genuine attempt to ensure that the system works as quickly and effectively as it can. At the same time, we must retain the important emphasis on human rights and on the liberty of individuals.
This requirement, together with some of the other provisions in the Bill, put the focus on how we get the right balance between acknowledging the rights of people who are subject to inquiries about their behaviour, but have not been charged with offences, and protecting the community from the possibility of those people carrying out further offences or, indeed, interfering with witnesses while on bail. What conditions should those people be subjected to because of their behaviour? This is a serious debate about striking the right balance, ensuring that there are safeguards in place for those people who have genuine rights and, at the same time, protecting the community.
We must ensure also that the police do not become bogged down in bureaucracy. The police service must have a system that allows it to maximise the time that it can spend protecting the public on the front line. Sometimes, these issues cause an inevitable internal tension between establishing a rigorous system that protects people’s rights and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. Some bureaucracy is necessary because the police service has the power to interfere with people’s liberty. Time and again, I make the point that not all bureaucracy is bad. In this country, bureaucracy often sustains our democratic principles. However, I am keen to minimise bureaucracy where possible, and I respond to amendments Nos. 135 and 136 in that spirit.
The term “senior constable” is not defined in our law. It may apply in other jurisdictions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs will know that we are intent on work force reform. We are considering the creation of an enhanced constable grade, which would allow for extra responsibilities in the neighbourhood policing team. However, those negotiations are at a very early stage.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 do not state whether street bail could be granted by more senior ranks than a senior constable. Clearly, superintendents, sergeants and inspectors should exercise those powers as well. However, the amendments go to the heart of some of the provisions for street bail. The purpose of introducing conditions on street bail is to give police officers the confidence legitimately to release people rather than keep them in custody. Therefore, the idea is to strengthen bail conditions so that people do not have to be kept in custody unnecessarily. Far from the measure being an extra incursion into people’s rights, it will minimise the amount of time that people spend in full custody. Therefore, providing that street bail is subject to a framework of conditions that gives police officers sufficient confidence to let people out of custody without the fear of them re-offending or interfering with witnesses, it will enhance people’s rights by allowing them to be in the community.
This is not simply about giving the police more powers; it is acknowledging that most people would like their time in custody to be minimised. Street bail, subject to conditions, will achieve that.

James Brokenshire: The use of detention is strictly controlled by the conditions that dictate the amount of time that a person can be held before he or she must come before a court. There do not appear to be any time restrictions in the conditions for the extension of street bail. Can the Minister square that off? I have articulated the need for scrutiny and review. Given that the measure is time-unlimited as far as I can see, no provision appears to have been made for oversight.

Hazel Blears: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are provisions for supervision and monitoring. People will be given a record of their conditions. Monitoring will take place to ensure particularly that the powers are not being used on the basis of stereotyping against  a particular group and that they are exercised reasonably and proportionately to what the officers are trying to achieve.
Circular 61/2003—there is always a Home Office circular—was issued when the original provisions for street bail were brought in. According to the circular, before an officer issues street bail, he must consider the seriousness of the offence, the views of the victim, the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the investigation. The guidance suggests that officers should not apply it to serious offences, which are a matter for bail at the police station rather than on the street, and requires them to have particular regard to offences involving juvenile offenders and to be aware that, as the hon. Member for Lichfield said, particular considerations sometimes come into play regarding young people. It might be more appropriate to issue that kind of bail at the police station rather than on the street.
Street bail gives officers on the street the power to deal with low-level offences there and then rather than taking people back to the police station, keeping them in custody, giving them conditional bail and letting them go about their business. Both sides benefit from street bail.
The requirement for a senior constable worries me. If an ordinary constable came across somebody committing a low-level crime—shoplifting, vandalism, graffiti or the like—they would have to wait for a senior constable to come before they could issue street bail. That could lead to an increase in bureaucracy. The person being detained would have to spend longer waiting, or would have to go back to the police station to be processed for police bail at the custody centre. That would take officers off the front line, and none of us wants that. We want to maximise their time out there. Street bail is a useful power provided that it is used properly and proportionately and is aimed at low-level offences that require an immediate and proportionate response.
There is a series of safeguards on the way in which street bail is processed. If the person does not agree with the conditions proposed, they can appeal against them to the custody officer at the police station and, if necessary, have a further appeal to the magistrates court. The system has checks and balances. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs moved his amendments with a proper regard for ensuring that the powers are not exercised arbitrarily or by people without proper training, and I share that concern.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister has been quite persuasive in her arguments for street bail. Does she accept that extra training may be needed, or do police officers already have the skills to take on the role? If not, how would the training be given?

Hazel Blears: I hate to say it, but the hon. Gentleman is almost reading my mind, which causes me some concern. I was just about to come to training. Of course we will expect officers exercising such powers to be properly trained. We expect that with any powers  that the police are given. They have extensive training, and we will expect them to be properly trained in those powers.
Tagging is being thought of as a condition. It is quite a serious step to take, and we shall issue guidance saying that tagging should be applied as a condition only at the police station. That is probably the right balance. The subject caused me a little concern when it was raised. The very requirement to apply tagging implies that the nature of the offence would not meet the criteria set out in our circular, which was about low-level offending. If we took steps to implement electronic tagging, that would clearly happen at the station.
I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman put forward his amendments, but there is no senior constable status. I hope that he agrees that there are sufficient safeguards in the system, and on that basis I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I am not sure that I accept that there are sufficient safeguards in the system, but perhaps we can discuss that under the next set of amendments, which will deal with that issue rather more specifically.
To give one example of the difference that the proposal in the Bill will make, if a suspect were granted street bail, he or she would not have a chance to consult a lawyer or receive any advice about whether to accept the conditions. The Minister says that that person will have a right of appeal. That is very different from a situation in which bail might be granted in a police station. It worries me that much of what the Minister said related to guidance that would be issued—there will be guidance to say that the provisions should be used only in relation to low-level antisocial behaviour and so on, and now there is to be guidance saying that the provisions should not be used in relation to tagging. I welcome the fact that that is the Government’s view, and that certainly deals with one of our concerns, but such provisions should probably be written into the Bill.

James Brokenshire: One other need that must be met if the matter is to be dealt with properly, aside from ensuring that power is not overused, relates to the Minister’s comment about ensuring that we do not unnecessarily detain. The power should be used effectively, with officers knowing when to take someone to the police station and detain them properly, rather than just giving them street bail with a condition attached to it. That way, there can be the security and safety that we all want for the public.

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend; the danger with the new measures, of course, is that it becomes the easier option for police officers, with fewer checks and safeguards than existing measures for the granting of bail at a police station. That is precisely the concern, and we will come to that.
I accept that there is no such office as senior constable, and it would be difficult to write one into the Bill, but I hope that, under the work force  modernisation to which the Minister referred, she will consider whether what we propose is wise. We will certainly be considering our own ideas for working up the creation of the designated rank of senior police constable.
What with the extension of summary justice in a number of other respects—we will come to them later, in relation to conditional cautions—my proposal is potentially very good, and would instil public confidence. I am anxious that, when the proposal is introduced by the Government in a year or two, we all remember that we heard it here first. Indeed, I suggested a respect agenda two years ago, and look what happened to that. That is not something to which I normally admit, but I feel moved to do so at this moment.
As we are about to discuss amendments suggesting further checks and safeguards for the operation of the revised conditions for street bail, and given the spirit in which the Minister responded to my amendment, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in schedule 4, page 75, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—
‘(b)to secure that the person attends at a police station.’.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in schedule 4, page 75, line 25, at end insert—
‘(5)Conditions of the bail imposed under subsection (3B) shall expire—
(a)at the time at which the person attends at a police station or surrenders to custody, or
(b)72 hours from the time at which the person was released on bail, whichever is the earlier.’.
No. 9, in schedule 4, page 76, line 13, leave out from ‘necessary’ to ‘, and’ in line 14 and insert
‘to secure that the person attends at a police station or surrenders to custody.’.
No. 10, in schedule 4, page 77, line 17, leave out
‘for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 30A(3B)’
and insert
‘to secure that the person attends at a police station or surrenders to custody.’.

Lynne Featherstone: The amendments are about getting the balance right between giving the public confidence that low-level and antisocial crime will be dealt with swiftly and effectively and issues of human rights and civil liberties. It is a form of summary justice and moves towards presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Those are our difficulties. Street bail can be an excellent tool in the police officer’s box, but as the Bill is presently drafted a constable could impose quite a range of conditions on that bail. Those conditions are at the officer’s discretion. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs tried to put some seniority into that decision-making process. Although we think that the power will be useful in certain circumstances, we are troubled by its open-ended nature. The  amendments seek to address twin concerns: the level of conditions that can be applied and the length of time for which they can be imposed.
The amendments first specify that the conditions set on bail will expire when the person presents himself at a police station or surrenders to custody, or three days from the time at which the person was released on bail, whichever is the earlier. They will also the restrict the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on street bail. The concern is to get the balance right. As drafted, the paragraph could lead to a misuse of the power or result in unintended consequences. Conditions such as tagging, curfew or a restriction on whom a person can speak to or meet will be imposed with no absolute time limit. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to liberty, and that severe restriction on liberty would become worrisome without a time limit. Conditional street bail could theoretically be used as a general, long-lasting preventive measure. If no time limit is ever brought into play, there is no end in sight.
Street bail is serious, not a casual act, and it is important to bear in mind that there could be serious consequences. While it can be immensely beneficial and effective, our concern is to ensure that it is not overly punitive. We seek reassurance from the Minister that the safeguards that apply to an individual in a police station or in custody will not be discarded when bail is granted elsewhere. The rights should be the same. Will a person released under street bail be able to call a lawyer before the constable imposes conditions on them? As has been mentioned, when street bail is granted, the officer responsible for deciding on the conditions will be the arresting or investigating officer and therefore not impartial in the imposition of conditions. The Minister said that the officer would be trained to understand what conditions would be appropriate. Nevertheless, an arresting officer is not impartial; normally anything punitive is dispensed with in the judicial system rather than through a police officer. When bail is granted in a police station, the custody sergeant, who is independent of the investigation under way, performs the semi-judicial role of deciding what conditions are justified. He or she has specialist expert training in those matters.
As the Bill stands, those safeguards will not be present when street bail is imposed. Will the Minister consider introducing the changes suggested, whether in the form of our amendments or later as Government amendments? They are probing amendments intended to encourage her to do so. I hope that she can see that it is unsatisfactory to provide such an open-ended position on street bail as the Bill contains, as it might lead to abuse of power and unintended consequences.

Hazel Blears: I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), because her amendments would remove the ability of the police to attach conditions to street bail, other than to attend a police  station. There would also be a maximum period for which conditions could be applied to street bail of 72 hours.
That would defeat two key elements of the clause. The first is to minimise the ability of the bailed person to offend further or cause further harm. One reason why we have set out the conditions in paragraph 2(3B) is precisely that we want conditions that can affect people’s behaviour so that they are less likely to reoffend and interfere with witnesses. The hon. Lady’s amendments would allow only the condition of simply turning up at the police station. That would defeat part of our very reason for introducing the provisions.
I hope the hon. Lady recognises that it is important to protect the public, and to get the balance right between the needs of the individual who is subject to the bail and the needs of the wider community. That is why we are introducing the ability to make these conditions, and her amendments would defeat that.

Lynne Featherstone: Does the Minister accept that there should be a time limit on those conditions?

Hazel Blears: No, I do not think it is right to include a time limit in the Bill. Clearly, it is important that our judicial and police systems work as quickly as possible and are as effective as they can be. The safeguards that are in the system that allow for a person to appeal first to the police against any conditions imposed and then to the magistrates court are sufficient. I would not like an arbitrary time limit to be placed on the street bail provisions.
It is clearly important for our police service to be able to get cases moving along as quickly as possible, and to make sure that cases are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and that charging decisions are made as quickly as possible. However, one of the purposes of street bail is to allow people to be released on bail, rather than being kept in custody while further inquiries are made and the case referred to the CPS. It is often in the interests of the individual to be given bail. If they can be granted bail only because that the police are confident that the conditions are sufficient to protect the community, it is in the interests of the person to whom bail is been granted to have the conditions, because one of the results of not having them could be that they were kept in custody.
I ask the hon. Lady to think about that balance. If it is in a police officer’s mind that the only thing they can do with a certain person is remand them in custody because they do not have the ability to give them conditions on their bail that give them the security that they are protecting the community, they are more likely to exercise their discretion by putting somebody in custody, rather than letting them out on bail. I hope she accepts that.

Lynne Featherstone: I do accept that bail can be an effective tool and can be beneficial to the person who is being street bailed, but my real concern is that it is open-ended. We will have to disagree about the issue of a time limit, and my proposal was not an arbitrary time limit. In my view, a time limit would be beneficial and a safeguard against the misuse or abuse of what is  a very useful power. We want to support the Government, but I am trying to encourage them to come a little way towards us.

Hazel Blears: I have confirmed to the hon. Lady that there are safeguards in the system in respect of the use of these powers. There will be monitoring, and there will be supervision by senior officers.
The hon. Lady made a point about whether it should be the arresting officer who decides on conditions. It is important that arresting officers are involved because they know what happened and will probably be in a good position to take on board the views of victims, which is important, and to take a view on whether street bail should be granted. They will be aware of the circumstances of the offence and how the investigation needs to proceed. I would not like to see some fairly arbitrary decision made about conditions that is not connected to the circumstances around the arrest. It is important that the arresting officer has an input into those conditions. Therefore, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s view that that process should be entirely separate.

James Brokenshire: I am interested in that last point. Obviously, if bail is granted at a police station, the custody sergeant has an independent, quasi-judicial role. I now hear the Minister stressing the need for the investigating officer to have much more of a say. Does that mean that bail from police stations will also be reviewed so that it reflects that? It seems to undermine the quasi-judicial nature of the custody sergeant at the police station, if I follow her argument correctly.

Hazel Blears: I have no proposals in this legislation to review the way in which bail is administered in that regard, but it is important. When we come to conditional cautions, we will come again to the appropriate division of decision making between arresting officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. It is important that the person who is aware of the circumstances is involved in the decision making, and that is why our circular talks about taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the views of the victim. It is important to know whether the victim is content that such conditions should be in place. That makes the decision-making process more real. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is important that there is a connection. I believe that safeguards are sufficient.

Lynne Featherstone: Am I right that it could be the singular responsibility of the arresting officer to make decisions about conditions?

Hazel Blears: Yes.

Nick Herbert: I listened with particular concern to what the Minister said in rejecting the suggestion that there should be a time limit on the operation of the conditions, which was made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. It seems extraordinary that  it would be theoretically possible for a person to have such a restriction placed on them in perpetuity, with no provision for formal review.
The Minister relied on the fact that there would be supervision of the proposals and that the individual concerned could appeal to a magistrate, and she described time limits as arbitrary. We have so-called arbitrary time limits in relation to all aspects of our criminal justice system, particularly the penal system. Time limits prevent people from being detained in police stations beyond a certain time, and so on. I wonder at the extent to which the provisions are even compatible with the human rights—

Greg Pope: Order. I think that the Minister may have got the drift of that rather long intervention.

Hazel Blears: I have said on several occasions that there will be proper supervision of the way in which the powers are exercised, in relation not only to the power to grant street bail but to the conditions attached, to ensure that they are necessary and proportionate. There will be checks and balances within the system to ensure that the powers are not exercised arbitrarily and, in particular, that they are not exercised in relation to specific stereotypes. The fear expressed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the powers would be used as a convenient way to deal with perceived rather than real problems will be monitored through the system.
The circular that I have mentioned, which has already been issued, suggests that street bail should be for as short a time as possible, and states that we should look to a maximum of four to six weeks.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

6.8 pm

On resuming—

Nick Herbert: I support the amendments.
Further to my comments about the extension of bail conditions, I add my concerns about where the measure leads us, given that there will be no time limit on or automatic review of the provisions, unless the relevant suspect appeals. I foresee that when dealing with suspects, it might become an option for the police to impose punitive conditions on bail in the hope that that will dismiss the suspect concerned and that the suspect will simply abide by the conditions. That would effectively shut out their need to go to court at all, and might mean that the courts never have an opportunity to consider the matter.
The proposals in the Bill represent a fundamental shift in the balance between the powers that we have traditionally expected the police to deploy and the proper role of the courts. In that context, it is extraordinary that there is no measure to time-limit the provisions and that the Minister would reject one. When my rather too lengthy intervention on the Minister came to an end, I was about to ask whether she was sure that the provision in the Bill was compatible with the Human Rights Act. I suppose that  the operation of consent is important, and perhaps that is the answer to my point, but the open-ended imposition of punitive restrictions, with no formal review process, nevertheless seems to contradict the normal processes and principles of natural justice.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green for tabling her amendments. Even if she decides not to press them, I hope that she, like my colleagues and I, will be willing to return to the issue at a later stage. Some of the principles that we have discussed will apply to the measures on conditional cautions, under which the same extension of summary justice is proposed. That gives rise to the same profound issue of whether it is proper to allow such an exercise of power without sufficient scrutiny or sufficient checks and balances.

Lynne Featherstone: I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but I am not reassured. There are issues about the open-ended and overweening nature of the change in the balance of power before charge, which might have some dangerous, unintended consequences. At this point, however, I am content to ask that we revisit the issue at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in schedule 4, page 78, line 4, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
‘6(1)In section 47(1A) after “but” there is inserted “, subject to subsection (1AA),”.
(2)After section 47(1A) there is inserted—
“(1AA)The normal powers to impose conditions of bail shall be available to him where a custody officer releases a person on bail under section 37(2) or 37(7)(b), subject to sections 47B to 47E below.
(1AB)In section (1AA), “the normal powers to impose conditions of bail” has the meaning given in section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976”.
(3)After section 47A there is inserted—
“47BLimits on duration of bail conditions without charge (1)Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 47C, 47D and 47E below, any relevant conditions on bail shall not last for more than 24 hours after the relevant time. (2)“Relevant conditions” in this section and in sections 47C, 47D and 47E below are any conditions of bail imposed on a person under section 47(1AA) above. (3)For the purposes of this section and sections 47C, 47D and 47E below “the relevant time” has the meaning given in section 41, subsections (2) to (5), subject to the following modification: for “the period of detention of” in subsection (2) there is substituted “duration of bail conditions imposed on”. (4)Subject to subsection (5) below relevant conditions shall be rescinded 24 hours after the relevant time. (5)Subsection (4) above does not apply if the continuation of relevant conditions for more than 24 hours after the relevant time has been authorised or is otherwise permitted in accordance with sections 47C, 47D or 47E below. (6)A person whose bail conditions are rescinded under subsection (4) above shall not be re-arrested without a warrant for the offence for which he was previously arrested unless new evidence justifying a further arrest has come to light since his release; but this subsection does not prevent an arrest under section 46A above.  47CAuthorisation of continuation of bail conditions (1)Where a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above who is responsible for the police station at which the relevant conditions were imposed has reasonable grounds for believing that— (a)the relevant conditions imposed on the person are necessary— (i)to secure that he surrenders to custody, or
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 47C, 47D and 47E below, any relevant conditions on bail shall not last for more than 24 hours after the relevant time.
(2)“Relevant conditions” in this section and in sections 47C, 47D and 47E below are any conditions of bail imposed on a person under section 47(1AA) above.
(3)For the purposes of this section and sections 47C, 47D and 47E below “the relevant time” has the meaning given in section 41, subsections (2) to (5), subject to the following modification: for “the period of detention of” in subsection (2) there is substituted “duration of bail conditions imposed on”.
(4)Subject to subsection (5) below relevant conditions shall be rescinded 24 hours after the relevant time.
(5)Subsection (4) above does not apply if the continuation of relevant conditions for more than 24 hours after the relevant time has been authorised or is otherwise permitted in accordance with sections 47C, 47D or 47E below.
(6)A person whose bail conditions are rescinded under subsection (4) above shall not be re-arrested without a warrant for the offence for which he was previously arrested unless new evidence justifying a further arrest has come to light since his release; but this subsection does not prevent an arrest under section 46A above.
(1)Where a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above who is responsible for the police station at which the relevant conditions were imposed has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a)the relevant conditions imposed on the person are necessary—
(ii)to secure that he does not commit an offence while on bail, or
(iii)to secure that he does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person, or
(iii)(iv)for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare or in his own interests;
(b)an offence for which he was arrested is an indictable offence; and
(c)the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, he may authorise the continuation of the relevant conditions for a period expiring at or before 36 hours after the relevant time.
(2)Where an officer such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above has authorised the continuation of relevant conditions for a period expiring less than 36 hours after the relevant time, such an officer may authorise the contiuation of relevant conditions for a further period expiring not more than 36 hours after that time if the conditions specified in subsection (1) above are still satisfied when he gives the authorisation.
(3)No authorisation under subsection (1) above shall be given in respect of any person more than 24 hours after the relevant time.
(4)Where an officer authorises the contiuation of relevant conditions under subsection (1) above, it shall be his duty to inform that person of the grounds for the continuation of relevant conditions.
(5)Before determining whether to authorise the continuation of relevant conditions under subsection (1) or (2) above, an officer shall give—
(a)the person on whom the relevant conditions were imposed; or
(b)any solicitor representing him who is available at the time when it falls to the officer to determine whether to give the authorisation,
an opportunity to make representations to him about the continuation of the relevant conditions.
(6)Subject to subsection (7) below, the person subject to the relevant conditions or his solicitor may make representations under subsection (5) above either orally or in writing.
(7)The officer to whom it falls to determine whether to give the authoisation may refuse to hear oral representations from the person subject to the relevant conditions if he considers that he is unfit to make such representations by reason of his condition or behaviour.
(8)Where an officer has authorised the continuation of relevant conditions on a person who has not been charged under subsection (1) or (2) above, any relevant conditions shall be rescinded at the expiry of 36 hours after the relevant time, unless—
(a)he has been charged with an offence; or
(b)continuation of the relevant conditions is authorised or otherwise permitted in accordance with section 47D below.
47DWarrants of continuation of bail conditions (1)Where, on an application on oath made by a constable and supported by an information, a magistrates’ court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the continuation of relevant conditions imposed on the person to whom the application relates is justified, it may issue a warrant of continued conditions authorising the continuation of the relevant conditions on that person. (2)A court may not hear an application for a warrant of continued conditions unless the person to whom the application relates— (a)has been furnished with a copy of the information; and
(1)Where, on an application on oath made by a constable and supported by an information, a magistrates’ court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the continuation of relevant conditions imposed on the person to whom the application relates is justified, it may issue a warrant of continued conditions authorising the continuation of the relevant conditions on that person.
(2)A court may not hear an application for a warrant of continued conditions unless the person to whom the application relates—
(a)has been furnished with a copy of the information; and
(3)The person to whom the application relates shall be entitled to be legally represented at the hearing and, if he is not so represented but wishes to be so represented—
(a)the court shall adjourn the hearing to enable him to obtain representation; and
(b)the relevant conditions may continue during the adjournment.
(4)Continuation of relevant conditions is only justified for the purposes of this section or section 47E below if—
(a)the relevant conditions imposed on the person are necessary—
(i)to secure that he surrenders to custody, or
(ii)to secure that he does not commit an offence while on bail, or
(iii)to secure that he does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person, or(iv)for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare or in his own interests;
(b)an offence for which he was arrested is an indictable offence; and
(c)the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.
(5)Subject to subsection (7) below, an application for a warrant of continued conditions may be made—
(a)at any time before the expiry of 36 hours after the relevant time; or
(b)in a case where—
(i)it is not practicable for the magistrates’ court to which the application will be made to sit at the expiry of 36 hours after the relevant time; but
(ii)the court will sit during the six hours following the end of that period, at any time before the expiry of the said six hours.
(6)In a case to which subsection (5)(b) above applies the relevant conditions imposed on the person to whom the application relates may continue until the application is heard.
(7)If—
(a)an application for a warrant of continued conditions is made after the expiry of 36 hours after the relevant time; and
(b)it appears to the magistrates’ court that it would have been reasonable for the police to make it before the expiry of that period,
the court shall dismiss the application.
(8)Where on an application such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above a magistrates’ court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that continuation of the relevant conditions imposed on the person to whom the application relates is justified, it shall be its duty—
(a)to refuse the application; or
(b)to adjourn the hearing of it until a time not later than 36 hours after the relevant time.
(9)The relevant conditions may continue during the adjournment.
(10)A warrant of continued conditions shall—
(a)state the time at which it is issued;
(b)authorise the continuation of the relevant conditions on the person to whom it relates for the period stated in it.
(11)Subject to subsection (12) below, the period stated in a warrant of continued conditions shall be such period as the magistrates’ court thinks fit, having regard to the evidence before it.
(12)The period shall not be longer than 36 hours.
(13)Any information submitted in support of an application under this section shall state—
(a)the nature of the offence for which the person to whom the application relates has been arrested;
(b)the general nature of the evidence on which that person was arrested;
(c)what inquiries relating to the offence have been made by the police and what further inquiries are proposed by them;(d)the reasons for believing the continuation of the relevant conditions on that person to be necessary for the purposes of such further inquiries.
(14)Where an application under this section is refused, either the person to whom the application relates shall forthwith be charged or, subject to subsection (15) below, the relevant conditions shall be rescinded.
(15)Relevant conditions need not be rescinded under subsection (14) above—
(a)before the expiry of 24 hours after the relevant time; or
(b)before the expiry of any longer period for which continuation of the relevant conditions is or has been authorised under section 47C above.
(16)Where an application under this section is refused, no further application shall be made under this section in respect of the person to whom the refusal relates, unless supported by evidence which has come to light since the refusal.
(17)Where a warrant of continued conditions is issued, the relevant conditions on the person to whom it relates shall be rescinded on the expiry of the warrant unless he is charged.
(18)A person whose bail conditions are rescinded under subsection (17) above shall not be re-arrested without a warrant for the offence for which he was previously arrested unless new evidence justifying a further arrest has come to light since his release; but this subsection does not prevent an arrest under section 46A above.
47EExtension of warrants of continued conditions (1)On an application on oath made by a constable and supported by an information a magistrates’ court may extend a warrant of continued conditions issued under section 47D above if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the continuation of the relevant conditions on the person to whom the application relates is justified. (2)Subject to subsection (3) below, the period for which a warrant of continued conditions may be extended shall be such period as the court thinks fit, having regard to the evidence before it. (3)The period shall not— (a)be longer than 36 hours; or (b)end later than 96 hours after the relevant time.
(1)On an application on oath made by a constable and supported by an information a magistrates’ court may extend a warrant of continued conditions issued under section 47D above if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the continuation of the relevant conditions on the person to whom the application relates is justified.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, the period for which a warrant of continued conditions may be extended shall be such period as the court thinks fit, having regard to the evidence before it.
(3)The period shall not—
(a)be longer than 36 hours; or
(4)Where a warrant of continued conditions has been extended under subsection (1) above, or further extended under this subsection, for a period ending before 96 hours after the relevant time, on an application such as is mentioned in that subsection a magistrates’ court may further extend the warrant if it is satisfied as there mentioned; and subsections (2) and (3) above apply to such further extensions as they apply to extensions under subsection (1) above.
(5)A warrant of continued conditions shall, if extended or furhter extended under this section, be endorsed with a note of the period of the extension.
(6)Subsections (2), (3) and (13) of section 47D above shall apply to an application made under this section as they apply to an application made under that section.
(7)Where an application under this section is refused, either the person to whom the application relates shall forthwith be charged or, subject to subsection (8) below, the relevant conditions shall be rescinded.
(8)Relevant conditions need not be rescinded under subsection (7) above before the expiry of any period for which a warrant of continued conditions issued in relation to him has been extended or further extended on an earlier application made under this section.’.
Some of this debate will be a repeat of the previous one. Basically, the amendment is copied from sections 41 to 44 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which relate to pre-charge detention. Once again, we  seek to ensure that the conditions that are set on pre-charge bail at a police station cannot be open-ended timewise and we seek to limit the duration of bail conditions without charge. Once again, Liberty was extremely strong and clear in its briefing about its concerns over the lack of safeguards, time limits and judicial oversight over the conditions for pre-charge bail.
As has been mentioned, certain things automatically follow when someone has been charged and the person has certain rights relating, for example, to contact with a lawyer or to learning about the case against them. The ability to impose conditions on a person before charge could lead to the police never getting round to the charge or never placing the case before the court. In effect, that would be a punishment or at least a restriction that was subject either to no legal necessities or only to necessities that were not sufficient to safeguard somebody’s civil liberties and human rights.
Unless time limits are provided for, pre-charge bail conditions could be used as alternatives to charging a person and bringing them before the courts for prosecution. Without judicial oversight, the police could use bail conditions as an endless preventive tool or as a punishment in themselves. In the amendment, therefore, we seek a reassurance from the Government that street bail cannot be used for lengthy periods while evidence is being gathered to determine whether to charge.
My colleagues and I are extremely uneasy about this part of the Bill, because we believe that it will have unintended consequences. I find it hard to see how the Minister can reassure us, even if there is guidance, that that is not the intention. Once again, we ask the Minister to support our amendment, although I am sure that she will find that difficult. If she is not willing to support it, I hope that she will be willing to table Government amendments to at least introduce a time limit to safeguard civil liberties and human rights.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady is right to say that the amendment covers some of the ground that we have already discussed. The aim of granting bail is to enable the person to be released from custody. At times during this debate, we have lost sight of that.
Under section 37(2) or (7)(b) to PACE, bail is granted pending the outcome of further police inquiries prior to a decision to charge or refer to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on a charge. Paragraph 6 of schedule 4 to the Bill before us amends PACE to enable the normal conditions of bail, which currently can be attached to bail that is granted pending the decision of the CPS to charge or refer, to be attached to the other categories of bail. As I have said, that is aimed at raising the ability and confidence of the police to enable people to be released from custody for a period sufficient to enable the necessary further inquiries to be completed.
The hon. Lady put forward the idea that the police might use that as a punitive end in itself, or as a method for simply never bringing a charge. That would be an  inappropriate use of police powers and therefore would be subject to challenge should a case come to court, and certainly subject to appeal in the magistrates court. There are safeguards in the Bill that would allow people to apply to the custody sergeant to have those conditions re-examined and varied, so I feel that the hon. Lady has reached a conclusion that is not justified by the provisions in the Bill. She is speculating that the police, with some kind of vindictive attitude or nefarious motive, would seek to use those powers inappropriately and unlawfully. The powers are there to be used in a proportionate way, and the conditions have to be necessary. The picture that she painted is extreme and not one in which police officers would be involved. Clearly, there are general provisions to challenge police officers’ actions should they act unlawfully.
The hon. Lady’s amendment would impose on the system a new and extensive bureaucracy, and require police and magistrates to review conditions even when the person who is subject to those conditions has not sought to change or vary them, or asked for them to be reviewed. It is difficult to see how an effective review could be carried out without contacting that person on virtually every day of their conditional bail to see whether those conditions are still appropriate and proportionate. Again, that would involve extensive bureaucracy, and would take officers off the front line so that they could go and find those people to check their conditions. The amendment is poorly thought out.
The hon. Lady talks about a maximum period of 96 hours. That is arbitrary, and I see no evidence to suggest that four days is the period for which bail conditions can normally be sustained. If bail conditions are issued at the custody station, in the normal course of events, people can be on bail for a significant time. I see no evidence whatever to suggest that the conditions set out in paragraph 6 would be more onerous than those that would normally apply, or that four days is the maximum period for which they should be sustained.
The Bill contains safeguards. I said in the circular that has been issued that street bail is not expected to last for a period longer than six weeks. In most cases, a person will answer to their bail much sooner. We are looking at a fairly short period in which people will have conditions so that while they are on the streets, they are not reoffending or interfering with witnesses. That will ensure that the investigation into the offence can proceed properly and that further police inquiries can be carried out while that person is on conditional bail.
After four to six weeks that person will answer to the bail and the matter will be dealt with. I really feel that the hon. Lady is painting a picture and imputing to the police service motives that it would not accept. She is suggesting that it would misuse those powers in a punitive and unlawful way. She is wrong to set out that scenario, so I ask her to consider withdrawing the amendment. If not, I ask the Committee to oppose it.

Lynne Featherstone: I was not impugning the police force; I am examining the extent to which those powers could be extended and the possibility of unintended consequences. That is my job, but this is a probing amendment, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 8 - Power to stop and search at aerodromes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) has raised with me the power to stop and search at aerodromes and the practical difficulty that arises where police officers might wish to enforce football banning orders. Under the law as it stands, somebody with a football banning order against them who has surrendered their original passport may intend to travel with a duplicate passport for which they had previously applied and that they had stuck away somewhere. They might attend a football match abroad and cause trouble, perhaps at the World cup, which is coming up. I understand that, at the moment, the police do not have the power to stop such a person. What can be done to address that situation, under clause 8, or by using a similar provision? That would certainly put at rest the minds of the likes of Michael Downes, the national representative from the Police Federation, who has done some research on this issue.

Hazel Blears: The clause introduces a new power for the police to stop and search any person at an aerodrome. It uses “aerodrome”, rather than airport, which sounds fairly old fashioned, because apparently that has a wider meaning and covers major airports, as well as airfields used only by private flying clubs. That was news to me.
The lack of appropriate stop-and-search power has been an obstacle to the police when conducting anti-smuggling operations and particularly in detecting staff collusion in theft. The current powers available to the police are not sufficient to provide a comprehensive deterrent, because airports are strange places—sometimes they are private property, with restricted access—providing significant opportunities for criminal and terrorist activity. Minor criminal activity could be exploited by terrorists, with disproportionate effects.
Police powers at airports are variable, depending on whether the airport has been designated. There are currently nine designated airports in the country where police constables have additional stop-and-search powers that are not available at non-designated airports. That is why it is important to get a consistent set of powers across different kinds of airports.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware that the policing of designated airports has to come from the budget of the respective police forces, so there is not an overarching incentive for senior officers to put police officers there 24 hours a day, seven days a week? In fact, there are many loopholes in police coverage at the nine designated airports.

Hazel Blears: I am aware of the policing at the designated airports throughout the country. Chief constables take their responsibilities seriously and provide appropriate policing relevant to the nature of the security risk and threat. Clearly, it is for chief constables to determine operational matters, but I am satisfied that they are making appropriate decisions to ensure that security is of the highest order at our airport facilities. These are important matters, particularly in the counter-terrorism context, so it is vital that airports are properly policed. A current review, by Stephen Boys Smith, is looking at funding for designated airports, because there can be disputes about who is responsible. I am not sure when he is due to report, but perhaps I could let the hon. Gentleman have that information in due course, as he has expressed an interest in it.
The point made by my hon. Friend Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) was raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. I undertook to examine whether it would be possible to give constables the extra powers that she mentioned. Extending the provision to provide a constable with the automatic power to check passports would represent a significant departure from the safeguards and protections in PACE code A, which is intended to minimise arbitrary interference with the individual. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green would welcome that.
We are ready to consider the potential for extending the power to a constable within the confines of an aerodrome, provided that benefits can be shown in terms of security and public reassurance and that sufficient criteria are developed on the exercise of the power and accountability. I am keen to ensure that such issues are brought to the fore. We are ready to examine any further evidence that the Police Federation may wish to submit in support of such a power. I cannot offer any firm undertaking that we will be able to address the point in the Bill, but it is an important issue and if we can find a way of making the power practical and useful, we should do it.
Our proposals on football banning orders have been very successful in limiting opportunities for football hooligans to travel internationally. The reputation of our international game has been enhanced as a result of rigorous policing and the new legislation that we have introduced to tackle such issues.

Mark Pritchard: Who will pay for officers from this country to go to help the German police when the World cup comes along? Will that be paid for by German or British taxpayers?

Hazel Blears: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but the hon. Gentleman will know that some reciprocal policing is going on. Some members of the German police are coming to this country to work in close liaison with our officers. I am sure that he would welcome such international co-operation between police forces.

Douglas Carswell: European co-operation.

Hazel Blears: It is not the creation of a European police force; I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that, although I am sure that he would welcome mutual aid and assistance, which could be beneficial to this country.
I do not have the information that the hon. Member for The Wrekin sought, but perhaps I could write to him with it. I shall be writing him a longer letter than I originally anticipated but am more than happy to do so. In fact, I can tell him now that the review of designated airports is likely to be completed by spring 2006. Sometimes, in Government-talk, seasons last a long time—sometimes summer extends to November. If I can be more definite later, I will be.
I am sure that the powers of stop and search at aerodromes set out in the Bill will be welcomed by hon. Members, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Information gathering powers: extension to domestic flights and voyages

Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
‘(2A)In section 32 (police powers to gather information relating to flights and voyages to or from the United Kingdom) after subsection (1) insert— 
“(1A)A circuit judge may on the application of a constable of the rank of superintendent or above issue a warrant in relation to specified passenger or service information under this section if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the nature of the information is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2).”’.

Greg Pope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 57, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
‘(2B)In section 32(2) (police powers to gather information relating to flights and voyages to or from the United Kingdom) leave out the words “imposed by a constable of the rank of superintendent or above” and insert “of a warrant”’.
No. 58, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
‘(2C)In section 32(4) (police powers to gather information relating to flights and voyages to or from the United Kingdom) leave out the words “A constable may impose a requirement under subsection (2) and a warrant may be issued under subsection (3) only if both are satisfied that it is necessary” and insert “A constable may impose a requirement”.’.
No. 59, in clause 9, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
‘(3A)In section 32(5) (interpretation of section) after “In this section—” there is inserted—
“‘circuit judge’ has the meaning given in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) Section 72.”’.

Lynne Featherstone: To a great extent, the amendment runs over territory covered on Second Reading in addressing the extension of the powers granted in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to reveal passenger lists to the law agencies. Those powers will be extended under the Bill for domestic flights—that is, flights starting and ending in this country. Our concern and the reason for the amendments is increasing surveillance. We want to support the Government in disrupting terrorism or preventing crime but, as ever, doing that leads to tensions over people’s civil liberties and the right to a private life.
I should also like to query how effective the measure will be, because there will not be equal surveillance on the roads and on rail. A terrorist who is creating a pattern for police officers to observe might well choose different forms of transport, so I am not sure that such powers are an effective tool in disruption. However, I am willing to say that they could be, so we should consider them seriously. We need to consider appropriate safeguards to protect the individual’s right to privacy.
There is also the question of whether a circuit judge is the appropriate level for the measure. In some ways, a magistrate might be more appropriate, because the Government propose that a superintendent make a request for information, and a magistrate is about the equivalent level. There is a belief on our side that some judicial oversight is needed because, as I understand it, there is a principle in common law that a decision that has been made should, by law, be able to be reviewed later. The Minister might argue that the police want powers that are not directed at individuals. However, I understand from the Home Office that the purpose is to spot developing patterns and to track such things so that crimes can be prevented and terrorism disrupted.
If those patterns can be spotted, there has to be concern that the search would be based on, for example, Muslim surnames. That must be taken into account when we consider whether it is appropriate for that information to be mined. We argue that there should be oversight. Our amendment does not affect the ability of the police to use the network to make connections between people. However, although detection and prevention of terrorism and crime are clearly to be desired, a circuit judge would have to be satisfied that such activities did not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998, and that they were for police purposes under section 21(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, safeguarding national security and any other purpose that the Secretary of State decides and is passed by order. That would add some protection, as I said on Second Reading.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Pope. I understand, through the wonders of modern technology, that the Metropolitan police have just launched an investigation into the alleged sale of honours by the Labour party. I wonder whether any member of the Committee feels an urgent need to give immediate evidence and assistance to the police.

Greg Pope: Whether or not they wish to do so, that is not a matter of order for me as the Chairman of this Committee.

Lynne Featherstone: It is jolly interesting, though.
In the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) had been informed in a letter that there would be an audit trail, and that the matter would be looked into. The amendment seeks to put further safeguards in place.

Hazel Blears: The amendments seek to require a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above to apply for a warrant from a circuit judge before being able to submit a request for passenger, crew or service information from the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft.
Requiring a police officer to obtain a warrant from a circuit judge every time they want to submit a request for data would be hugely burdensome for both the police and the courts. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the power is intended to be used in relation to assessments of threat or risk; it is not intended that the police should have access to the 40 million or so domestic journeys that would fall into those categories. They would seek to use the information in the course of their inquiries, in seeking to find out patterns of travel and to build up an intelligence picture. There are powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to obtain information on international flights. The clause seeks to introduce the same power for domestic flights, ferry crossings and journeys from ports.
Often, the domestic leg of a journey can be influential and important in a criminal investigation. Such journeys are often connected to international flights, and people stop off and travel around the country. Therefore, it is important for the police to be able to build the proper intelligence picture, so that they can not only respond to events when they have happened, but, if they have built up a picture, intervene. That might allow them sometimes to prevent serious crime and terrorism from taking place.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware of unease in the intelligence and police services about when they receive passenger manifests? If she is, will she tell us what consideration has been given to the American approach, where passenger manifests are received four days ahead of international scheduled flights?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, this is a new power for us and a new area into which we are moving. I am sure that the police will learn from their experience of using the power whether it is fit for purpose.
The current proposal is for a request to be submitted to obtain advance information. I am not sure how far in advance some domestic carriers would have that. We are currently in negotiations with the industry, for example, about what documentation people need to produce for domestic flights. Currently, people do not need to produce passports for such flights, so we need to try to ensure that we get sufficient information to be of use to the police. However, we should not ask for too much information because that becomes a burden on both the carriers and the individuals concerned. We are trying to ensure that the costs for and requirements on the carriers are minimised, while ensuring that we have useful information that we can use for crime prevention and detection.

Mark Pritchard: Given the growth in electronic ticketing, surely the information that the police require needs to reach them in time for them to investigate any suspect passengers. Currently, they so often receive manifests after the event. Professionals have told me that they are concerned that the measure will still not give them enough time. If that is the case, it needs to be re-examined.
Let me give an example. I am going to the United States on a private visit in the next few weeks. I have already booked my ticket and therefore I will be known to the authorities.

Hazel Blears: I wish the hon. Gentleman well on his visit.

Stephen Pound: One-way, I trust.

Hazel Blears: I would not say that to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will find out some interesting information on his visit that will help us to take this forward.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that information that the police request from carriers will include passenger name record data, which is a generic airline term used to describe the information that the carrier collects about a passenger in the normal course of its business. I am sure that the information will be transmitted by electronic means.
 We have Project Semaphore, which is co-ordinating information in relation to border policing. It is part of the e-borders programme. It will process advance passenger information and passenger name records data. The data will be sent to a newly created joint border operations centre where officers from the border agencies will confirm that the traveller identified is the same person who is of interest to them. There will be an extensive system to ensure that we can get information that is of use to us.
All I was saying was that I do not know whether four days should be the period; I do not have that detail at the moment. We need to ensure that we have the information in good time to enable us to track the kind of people that we want to be able to track.
The Terrorism Act 2000 contains powers whereby examining police officers can request information relating to counter-terrorism powers at port or border areas, but they cannot obtain the same information to  deal with serious and organised crime. It is important that they have powers right across the piece. The current legislation does not allow for what the hon. Gentleman talks about: gathering information in advance to enable the police, hopefully, to pre-empt some of the dangers and threats to our system.
Under the Data Protection Act 1998, there are provisions for people not to disclose information in an unauthorised way. People would be subject to a criminal offence is they were to do so. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the police have a duty to ensure that they comply with convention rights. A series of safeguards are in place, through those two 1998 Acts, to ensure that information is not used inappropriately.
It is important, particularly in the light of the threat that we face from serious and organised crime and terrorism, that we give the police sufficient powers to enable them to protect the security of this country while at the same time maintaining safeguards. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I will constantly disagree about where the balance properly lies, but we can probably agree that there needs to be a balance. In this case, there are sufficient safeguards in the system to obviate the need for an application to a circuit judge before any application for data can be made to the carrier itself. That would be far too burdensome a procedure to go through and could mean that vital information slips through the net. Our police service would then not be able to protect the people of this country in the way in which it should be able to. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Lynne Featherstone: I should have said that this is a probing amendment. We agree with the Minister that it is important for the police to have the power to disrupt terrorism and prevent and track organised crime. We also accept that speed is of the essence. We are talking about a balance, and my balance shifts to what the review process should be, to what checks and balances can be used to look retrospectively at requests and to consider whether there was a trend or anything untoward in those requests. When we consider new clause 3, we will examine such points. I would be equally happy to have the provision that I seek in a review process that would not interrupt the police’s speed and efficiency. I am relieved to learn that there will not be a database into which all of the information will be put, but we must remember that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was to be reapplied for in each part of London, is now permanent across London. Such things can escalate and become permanent, which is a small concern for us. On the basis of the Minister’s explanations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 23 March at five minutes to Nine o’clock.